Report a Comment

@Richard
I agree it is an important consideration with the Col Brooks project that it abuts houses, but this is sort of my point. If the residents of these houses had made a good faith effort to engage with the developers they may have gotten a better result that addressed this valid concern. Instead they just made objection after objection, and every time the the developer changed something, they came up with another reason. My favorite was when they insisted there must be an underground spring on the site even though the developers hydrologist couldn't find it and the residents didn't want to pay for their own assessment.

At some point the Col Brooks people just gave up working with them and pushed on.

It seems to me the same thing may result at the Cafritz on Connecticut, and unlike Col Brooks it doesn't require any variance, so unless those people engage in good faith they may not have their reasonable concerns addressed.

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

Which rules in the comment policy do you believe the comment violates? Comment is spam. Comment attacks other individuals personally. Comment is name-calling or berates, belittles, or interrogates others. Comment discourages others from posting their ideas. Comment is getting into an aggressive argument with another. Comment is trolling. Comment is off topic. Commenter is impersonating someone else or switching handles. Comment uses profanity or abusive language. Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another. Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site. Comment is arguing about the comment policy.